The world was created or just is?

That's a good point. Hadn't thought of that, but I'm not sure I'd conclude that religion had anything to do with their transformation, though it might have.

 

Two or three close friends growing up have flat out told me that God was the only thing that saved them and kept them clean.

I may have a different take as our church supports rather large and active recovery group.

 

Same here.

 

I know a lot of atheists & they mostly think w/o religion, shit would suck cuz it keeps peeps in line. In fact, I recall a great arg I had with my boy about this issue. I feel like he kicked my ass.

For the record, I believe in the power of the belief in god. I just don't belive in god(s).

 

If you find Christians incredibly offensive you’ll absolutely hate their Lord. Read: Luke 12:51

 

I’m the last Bible-believer to sugarcoat. Sovereign Bible-God and Bible-world are rough. It is what it is.

Maybe it’s not so much that God is a dick but that you’re the corresponding body part ?

 

This has been an enjoyable thread to read.

I agree that it is very difficult to peg cause and effect on this individual level, so we can’t know for sure religion caused this positive effect. That said, this should equally apply your claim above that you know of cases where religion caused people to behave badly. Perhaps these were people looking for any excuse to behave in such a way.

I do think we might be able to find some evidence for the positive impacts of religion here at the population level. I read two books that make a good argument for a functional origin of religion: Darwin’s Cathedral by evolutionary biologist DS Wilson and The Righteous Mind by evolutionary psychologist Jonathan Haidt. To me, the two most compelling examples were these:

1. Jewish diamond merchants. I’ve always thought it was kind of weird that there was such a thing as a Jewish diamond merchant, but perhaps there is good reason for this. The argument is that being in possession of a lifetime’s worth of riches overcomes many people’s morals. However, the bonds and training of the Jewish faith made these people exceptionally trustworthy, where often the diamonds changed hands with no more than a handshake as a promise of later payment.
2. The Balinese water temple system. In Bali, temples are often located at the forks of rivers, and it is believed that this allows for better allocation of water among the downstream collectives, as these disputes are adjudicated among the sanctity of the temples. Indeed the utility of these temples was underscored by Bali’s government’s attempt to import scientific farming, which ended up failing spectacularly compared to the successes of the ancient water temple system.

Now I think both authors would admit that religion can only act on our minds, if our minds are structured to appreciate the sacred, so it can’t be the religion acting in isolation. People have to want to be good. I am not religious but, I still do want to be good. Toward this end, I read people like Marcus Aurelius and Viktor Frankl. Now, these guys don’t help me to avoid murder, as I never even considered the act, but I do think their teachings help me in those smaller harder moments, where I am low patience with family or coworkers. If that is true that these mortals can help me be better, I can’t see why a holy Jesus couldn’t have the same effect on others.

 

That sums up my world view. Your saying you don't believe is not the same as saying there are no gods.

 

The utility of religion was once a sort of universal value system that more or less everyone shared across Western nationalities, rich and poor, powerful and powerless, etc. It obligated everyone to each other in some way, top to bottom. But that is gone and isn't coming back, and attempts to impose it will inevitably fail to resurrect a past where the authority of God was unquestioned. We know too much now, and some sort of unimpeachable higher authority can no longer exist in modernity, because religion and power are all demystified, and wielded nakedly in so many cases. Christianity exists in zombie form today, what power it has to shape society is not dependent on anyone believing in God or Jesus's teachings. So, it is no surprise we see a resurrection of nationalism today as people search for some sort of unifying conceit, not unlike the late 19th century. Of course, that brought us multiple world wars and genocides.

 

Christians are taught that Jesus is moral exemplar, that they should want to be like him, that in every instance we should ask WWJD ?

But doing what Jesus would do is as apt to bring one into sharp conflict with others as it is to bring one into harmony than others.

The being nice to others part is low-bar stuff in the Bible. And I’ll admit to struggling to do that little at times.

Overall I’d say that the Jesus religion is not a workable framework for government or society. Rather, it belongs in a distinct community that offers itself as an alternative to the world as usual.

The Bible says come out and be separate. It is a sort of secession from a world which does not seek after God and his ways.

 

That's a really good post. Are you sure you wrote it?

 

There are out of body experiences and there are out of mind experiences.

 

Just a question. What do you mean by "We know too much now"?

 

We've answered questions we couldn't answer 200+ years ago, like the origin of mankind. I think there's a reason evolution was so hotly contested and still is, and why Nietzsche could write "God is dead" in a Darwinist world where Christianity was still dominant and widely believed. Even on a more basic level, we understand a lot more about what motivates people and how they think, which has replaced a sort of "good faith" notion of us being God's creatures who have free will. There is even an almost deterministic view of politics and ideology now, and I see it creep in here in various junk science posts about how conservatives or liberals are x or y, or whatever. Even the process of how people deliberate things is demystified, and seems more predictable. People who have a basic familiarity of politics can predict how the supreme court will rule on most issues, or who will support what, and why. They can do game theory about how some problem or issue might play out, anticipate the moves of others, and adapt accordingly. While these abstractions are useful, they also tend to turn the things they represent into the abstractions themselves. Politics becomes less rooted in concrete material reality and more like a game or simulation.

 

I’m not sure what is meant by “unity of religion” but the part about the Christian community losing its savor is spot-on. That its shaping force is so anemic is the reason I guffaw at jeremiads about theocracy.

 

Even as a Christian, I find the siren song of politics enticing. But it is a siren song.

 

I do not doubt that and am happy for people who make positive changes regardless of whether they credit secular or spiritual principles. Having said that, I'm not sure that examples of Christians, Muslims, Hindus, etc., who have turned their lives around (not saying this is your position btw) establishes anything about the truth of the world religions given that the specific claims and teachings are often mutually exclusive. Put another way, perhaps the mere existence of faith in something affords its own strength independent of the details. If so, I think that actually undermines religious arguments in a sense. Even then, I think it's fair to ask how people who don't have faith but might benefit from having faith are supposed to find it in the first place.

 

I wrote "utility of religion"

 

Thanks for making the crucial distinction of faith in faith vs. faith in [someone or some thing].